[Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi

Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org
Mon Oct 16 11:35:11 PDT 2017


On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:15:48AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
:> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:

:>: It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the
:>: Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall.   The Rambam clearly does
:>: not agree with that whole version of the story...

:> The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early.

: The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation*
: imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*.  This is not
: consistent with the Y'mi.

I see what you mean. Again, it is interesting to find out where the
Rambam's alternate picture comes from. Just as his "kol" in "vekhol
chakhmei dodo" doesn't seem to be Chazal's picture in either shas.
E.g. Sanhedrin 93b, "nechzei anan i moreiach veda'ain..." They were
still checking out the validity of BK's claim at the time of his death.

:> As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK
:> out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his
:> being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already.

: Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do
: miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles,
: prove that Moshiach needn't do any? ...

To repeat myself: 11:3 talks about following someone despite a lack
of miracles. 12:1-2 talks about the necessary absense of at least a
particular kind of miracle -- the start of a new natural order -- if
not miracles altogether.

If you want to talk about needn't do... then you're looking at R' Aqiva
and pereq 11. If you want to talk about won't do... then you're looking
at pereq 12 and his assumption of Shemu'el's "ein bein" over Rav's
shitah.

And the list of things that won't happen is necessarily a subset of
things that one needn't wait to happen before following the candidate.
Possibly a strict subset, possibly identical sets.

:>:> But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would
:>:> show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach.

:>: How so?   He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but
:>: they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu.

:> "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the
:> Rambam says.

: Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who
: disobey are punished...

You're just repeating the insistance that "vayakhof" could include
trying to force people and failing. If the punishments don't actually
get the majority observing, is it kefiyah?

And we have no evidence or even claim of BK ever even having set up
a punishment system. Although this too could be part of the picture
the Rambam draws that I don't know the sourece for. After all, as per
the above, the picture you get from CHazal is that the Sanhedrin and
its enforcement system was *not* behind BK, but the Rambam would have
them aligned.

...
:> Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har
:> haBayis.

: The Sanhedrin was already organized.   There's no requirement that
: they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does
: eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and
: fighting the war, which is the stage he was at.

Actually, there is strong evidence he at least started building a
BHMQ. And while I suppose they didn't have to move in yet, Anshei
Keneses haGedolah moved in to a "lishkah" demarkated by curtains!

"Chezqas moshiach" isn't a state in-and-of-itself. It's a chazaqah,
a legal presumption, that someone is moshiach. A presumption of a
status, not a status. IOW, it is likely that among all of beis David,
only the mashiach would be hogeh in Torah and oseif bemitzvos, bring the
Jews to observance (minimally: by compulsion) "leileikh bahh ulchazeiq
bidqah". And therefore, if we find a member of beis David succeeding
at these things, we are obligated to act with the understanding that he
is mashiach.

Thus, it is meaningless to talk about what happens before or after
chezqas mashiach, as though it were a real state change.

: Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to
: keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so.

That's yhour own creative read of what kefiyah means. Forcing or not,
it implies actual follow-through.

BK didn't risk (and in fact lose) the backing of the majority to get a
minority sect to join his support. He didn't get the majority to observe
-- or even want to keep mitzvos (as per TSBP).

:> Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's
:> chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim
:> followed BK.

: What else could it be?  He goes directly from saying that miracles
: are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements.
: Therefore he must have done those things.

Requirements for building a chazaqah that the candidate is indeed
moshiach. Which is a measure of confidence in BK the Rambam doesn't
claim R' Aqiva and his generation reached -- they only reached as far
as "hu hayah omer alav" and "vedimah hu". No mention of a chazaqah
they were chayavim to follow; in fact, the lashon ("dimah") implied
its lack.

Chazaqah isn't imagination; it's a presumption strong enough to obligate
our acting upon.

: What's weak about it?  They must have had a reason for this
: imagination.  What else but the chazaka?  And if they thought he
: hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't
: required to reach it?

Miracles aren't required. Full stop. 12:1 could even be saying they
are ruled out.

"What else other than the chazaqah"? Indicators that are short of a
chazaqah. Don't we follow umdena, ruba deleisa leqaman, and other
notions of likelihood without going as far as having a chazaqah
in a lot of halachic topics?

: You're misreading it.  It's not "din", it's *dein*.  Dein hu malka
: meshicha, this is the Annointed King.

"Hadein hu"?

Not that important for the main topic, since dimah isn't an expression
I would picture the Rambam using for a mandatory following of a chazaqah.

:> BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar
:> Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b
:> Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh
:> ve'adayin ben David lo ba."

: He was the lone exception, or nearly so.   Because *he* held that
: the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the
: beginning.  The Rambam paskens against him.

That is against the stam bavli (in Sanhedrin 93b, quoted above), which
says it's Rabbanan.

...
: This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's
: criteria or he doesn't...

Critria for what? I still find you mixing apples and oranges.

He uses R' Aqiva's following of BK despite the lack of a chazaqah as
proof that we too shouldn't wait for a miracle before following a
likely moshiach.

He used Shemu'el's position to rule out miracles (or to be generous,
maybe only one kind of miracle) being part of the messianic dream
altogether.

Very consistent picture, IMHO.

: In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature.  A
: miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature...

It is a bitul of something miminhago shel olam, albeit a temporary
one. But I have consistently left open the door to saying he's only
talking about a subset of miracles; those that leave the running of
things changed. I don't find it likely that the Rambam's "yibatel davar"
means only permanent bitul, doubly so since it would be redundant with
the next line, "o yihyeh sham chidush bemaaseh bereishis".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             People were created to be loved.
micha at aishdas.org        Things were created to be used.
http://www.aishdas.org   The reason why the world is in chaos is that
Fax: (270) 514-1507      things are being loved, people are being used.



More information about the Avodah mailing list